Chores - a Self Determination theory SDT and CPS approach

Kids are more likely to contribute to the home and do their chores when they can identify with the goals of their parents and have their needs for autonomy - see chores and autonomy support , competence and relatedness met ( Self Determination Theory ) while engaging in chores. Chores present us with many opportunities to support kids autonomy , their skills and competence , and most important a time when parents and kids can connect and spend time together. So many good conversations can take place while kids and parents are doing things together.

 It is important to always have in the back in our minds our Parenting goals  when we deal with chores and contributing around the home.

1 Discuss the benefits of an organized home with the kids. The idea is to elicit ideas and responses from them with dialog questions rather than lecturing or telling them.  We should try to 'transcend' interactions with kids and go beyond instructions or giving kids a list of chores - The kitchen can be a classroom .We should turn it into a learning experience and the acquisition of skills and more important , a time to connect and spend time with your kid.  Browse the internet. This shows kids that organizing a home is a  ' science ', something serious which requires learning. We can expose them to some of the ideas of Feng Shui  and the important concept of ' de-cluttering ' your home,  so the taking out the trash takes on a different meaning.

http://www.allaboutlivingwithlife.com/2009/03/organized-home-5-benefits.html

When kids identify with your  goals and benefits of an organized home , they will be more motivated to contribute to the home.

2 Talk in the plural  - our home , what we need to do . Kids need to see themselves as individuals but part of a family, class, school or community. We want to foster autonomy and interdependence and  RELATEDNESS

3 COMPETENCE -  check   Sarah  Ward on Executive functions  http://www.abspedpac.org/Documents/Sarah_Ward_execfuncpres.pdf

A lot of kids have problems with planning ,  how to perform  the task and monitor  their progress.

We can collaborate with kids and let them visualize the future, and make a plan. It helps to break  down the plan into its parts,  and then we need to organize ourselves  so we can achieve our goals , monitor how we are doing and evaluate our progress.  We can use Schemas or flow charts  -  that show the time , sequence, space , materials and people related to the plan. We can put these schemas or posters on the walls as prompts and reminders.

We should do this with all tasks in the home.

4 Getting started and transitioning -  competence

Having a daily routine and schedule gives a certain predictability to the day and helps kids to transition.    It is important that the kids themselves participate in making the lists.

Getting started is often a big problem.  Parents may need to help kids get started by working with them on the task. Working with someone on a task helps kids inertia and they benefit from the attention they receive from parents or connection with others. Parents can demonstrate how the job can be done and share they experience.

  

5 Review and monitoring progress

There should be an agreement made in advance that kids and parents will review the situation together and do some collaborative problem solving to solve any problems.

6 Because chores are rarely intrinsically motivating we need to associate them with other goals.

a)      In some cultures the home is made tidy in order to honor a festival or the Sabbath

b)      Guests and friends are honored by entertaining them in a tidy and pleasant home. If we want tidy homes  have friends of your kids come for visits or sleepovers.

c)       A tidy home is a mirror of the people who live in it.

7  Modeling -   We need to model  behavior and attitude for our children when we engage in chores. Our homes should be de-cluttered and organized , the same items stored in one place , labels abound and space is used well.  We need to do things with energy joy , song and dance so the kids can't not join in and have fun.

8 Association of fun – We can give  Chores an association with fun if we play some good music and have some goods snacks  and drink on the table .There are plenty of cleaning up and fun games that make chores more fun. When we and our kids enjoy ourselves , we not only connect with each other – relatedness  but also to our inner cores and perceive our  autonomy and self direction.

9 CPS – collaborating to solve problems

a)      Empathy stage -  out of the moment :  I have noticed …. What's up?  - get kid's concerns on the table , go slow , let him feel understood

b)      Define the problem – put your concerns on the table

c)       Invitation -  I am wondering if we can find a way  to address both concerns and brainstorm a mutually satisfying solution

d)      Agree to review how the plan is working.

Allan

Parenting Goals and chores

I am looking at ' chores' from a Self determination theory – SDT and Collaborative problem solving - CPS perspectives. Kids are more likely to identify with our goals and values with respect to chores or even find some of them ' intrinsically motivating '  if their needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness are supported and problems are solved in a collaborative way.

The first step is to examine our   Parenting Goals.

Before we try to engage our kids in helping around the home , we first need to ask ourselves -  what are my  primary and long term goals for my kids and how will my approach to chores impact on these goals.

 If not, and especially when it comes to chores  -

 ' We may be tempted to focus our energies on overcoming children’s resistance to our requests and getting them to do what we tell them. If we’re not careful, this can become our primary goal. We may find ourselves joining all those people around us who prize docility in children and value short-term obedience above all. I realized that this is what many people in our society seem to want most from children: not that they are caring or creative or curious, but simply that they are well behaved. A “good” child–from infancy to adolescence–is one who isn’t too much trouble to us grown-ups. '   -  Alfie Kohn

 If our goals are to build a trusting and caring relationship with our kids , helping them to become  intrinsically motivated ,autonomous, competent , responsible and caring people we need first to find another more successful word for helping around the home other  than ' chores'. 

When our goal is simply ' compliance ' , chores describes the reality in the home , an economic or contractual relationship between parents and kids , where kids are taught  - you need to give in order to get ,  kids are rewarded for doing chores , and  chores are tired to allowance money or privileges . No worthwhile attempt can be made to promote or enhance a commitment to the value of family, interdependence and group goals, supporting one another, how a clean, tidy and aesthetic home can contribute to the family and its members. When kids are threatened or bribed they are taught that they cannot be trusted to help or chores have no intrinsic value on their own.  Parents in fact have thus converted the ' social norm ' of making a contribution to the home into an economic norm , something which is valued only in monetary terms and changes a social relationship –  kindness and caring into a contractual relationship.  The kid  learns to ask ' what will I get if I do ……, what will be done to me if I don't   ….,  what's in it for me '? . Doing chores may become a habit done in a rote mechanical  way , something that kids would rather not do but are forced to do by parents or at best an internal compulsion  motivates them. Instead we want kids to reflect on how their actions impact on others, to reflect on the type of person they want to be and the values they want to live by. As parents we can pursue our expectations by ' working with kids', supporting their autonomy and solving problems in a collaborative way.

Allan

Structure - a tool of control or freedom and autonomy

Structure can be used as a tool of control or support the autonomy of kids or people , thereby letting them experience true freedom.

Baumrind describes 3 parenting styles  - authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive , none of them consistent with SDT – Self determination theory or ' working with the child'  approaches .

She recommends an authoritative parenting style and holds that "structure" in the family requires the use of extrinsic motivators and "contingent reinforcement," which she strongly supports.

'There is an  important distinction between control and structure.  Again, the people who tend to conflate those two are often either authoritarian types who claim they are giving kids structure but are really controlling the hell out of them, or extreme freedom folks who also assume the two are the same and therefore if we don’t want to control kids we must provide no structure either.  The third alternative, more consistent with the progressive education tradition of Dewey and Piaget and Bruner, suggests that in many respects, kids, especially little kids and especially kids of a certain personality and disposition, do thrive best within certain forms of structure – though not with control '      Alfie Kohn

Most people can relate how 'structure'  can support the need for competence in kids. When structure is created together with kids and not by teachers alone, they are presented in a non-controlling , respectful way as guidelines with a rationale and purpose  behind them , they are developmentally appropriate  and attempt is made to make them as less restrictive as possible , structure helps support the autonomy .

The existence of structure , limits and boundaries can be a condition for a kid to experience autonomy assuming that the kid does not experience  them as being controlling. The same goes for adults who adopt certain limits or boundaries in their lives whether out of a religious calling or commitment to certain values. They may have limited choice , but their choice to adopt limits and boundaries lets them focus less on ' quantity '  but more on quality and enables them to experience true freedom and autonomy.

A parent who provides healthy food and snacks can allow her child the freedom to eat as they choose. In other homes , kids are forced to eat their meals in order to get desert and this external control is a potential cause of obesity as kids lose their intuitive feel to stop eating when they are full and satisfied and eat only when they are hungry.

Here is an excerpt from a  Naomi Aldort interview -  Natural Life magazine – Ask Naomi , Freedom is not license  AS Neill  where she explains how limiting choice supports the autonomy and true freedom of kids . It is like providing him a safe environment , a park where he can play. Join the child’s exploration and follow his lead but don’t follow him into the “jungle.” He counts on your leadership. Take him to the safe park and then you can follow his path in that safe place. You are the leader who can see the distant view, which is not available to the child.

 Naomi Aldort - Structure , freedom and autonomy

Structure  and autonomy support are important in the school setting helping kids become self regulated life long learners .

 SDT - structure and autonomy support for school kids

Health incentives - SDT, CPS , 12 steps

A attitude amongst politicians and some behavioral economists is to give money directly to people contingent on them getting good scores on health tests - for eg loosing weight or quitting smoking. This they say is more effective than spending on health services aimed at helping people lose weight or quit smoking. Companies are also giving incentives to employees to get good scores with their weight or smoking issues.




In an article –" Can incentives make us healthier "?, Alfie Kohn shares a SDT perspective why incentives not only don't work but may make things worse . He has a link in the article to a review of the research on incentives and health, and a link to a one hour talk on incentives in general and health issues in particular. I highly recommend the talk.

Can incentives make us healthier ? Alfie Kohn



A better approach is to use working with approaches rather than ' doing to ' people- trying to motivate them and ' incentivize ' them. CPS – collaborative problem solving addresses the underlying factors and the intrinsic concerns of people , gives them skills and fosters caring relationships. MI – motivational interviewing does the same. CPS and MI satisfy the SDT needs of autonomy , competence and relatedness.



Incentives undermine autonomy, competence and relatedness of peole trying to loose weight or quit smoking.



Autonomy

1 people feel ' being controlled and manipulated'

2 no commitment to the intrinsic value of ' wellness or healthy life styles'



Competence

1 people attribute their success to the reward, they begin to think of themselves as extrinsically motivated.

2 rewards impair creative and exploratory thinking by narrowing focus especially on tasks which require attention to quality and thinking.

3 rewards make people less cooperative , not sharing information or helping each other. This is even more problematic when rewards are made scarce – awards in a competitive environment. Their success is measured against others and dependent on the failure of others.

4 Focus is on ' behavior ' and money and not the intrinsic concerns and problems that are getting in the way of the person.

5 Rewards give the message that the valueor program  is not intrinsically worthwhile. We would not being involved if it was not for the money.



Relatedness



Relatedness refers to the people giving the rewards, others in the program and the program itself



1 people feel controlled by the people giving the rewards . Rewards turn people into objects - you do to them - incentivize them ' , rather than working with them

2 It shows lack of trust. People would not try or do their best if it was not for the reward.

3 Rewards set up competition and non-cooperation between members of the program.

4 Rewards negate the promotion of a ' caring community and support groups ' by focusing on rewards individuals are getting.

5 Rewards convert the value of ' wellness' from a social norm, a value into an economic norm. One relates to ' quitting smoking or losing weight ' in terms of money or economic benefit. So the decisions are made on whether the program is economically justified , how much money we will make. Instead the focus should be on converting money and other resources into '  experiences '  and processes ' , investing in wellness and a healthy lifestyle. To use a term from Eric Fromm  - To Be or to Have , rewards  foster a'  to have '  mindset , rather than a ' to Be ' mindset .

This reminds of the ' neighbour ' who approached a kid to take care of his dog , while he was overseas.
Neighbour asks the the kid -  How much - for looking after my dog while I am away
Kid - I am willing to pay  $10

6 The focus is on ' results ' - losing weight or quitting smoking and not on the process , a healthy lifestyle and a commitment to wellness..

The process – a healthy life style and a commitment to ' wellness' is a life time commitment.

The mistake people make is not to think of dieting as a life time activity.




In order to be successful in dieting people need to be competent in providing alternative meals that replace existing habits , have time for exercise , have the support of family , be involved in support groups ( for life ) and feel autonomous in their decisions. They have to deal with the underlying issues of the smoking or weight gain. Even if we stick to a diet and work out , if we are stressed out we will still gain weight. The hormone cortisol converts muscle into fat to help us deal with stress.

Cortisol and weight gain



There are many supports groups that use the ' 12 steps program' . It is not what you eat , but what's eating you that is making you put on weight.



Here is a link to an online support group. I am sharing ' working the steps ' of a leader called ' Lawrie' , the 3rd quarter of 2008 .


Working the 12 steps recovery group
The recovery group 2008 , 3rd qter- Lawrie


Allan

Changing paradigms to a CPS/ SDT way of thinking - Part 1

One of the difficult challenges facing parents of challenging kids is advocating for their children and dealing with the school system. Parents have the task of changing the perceptions of staff and help them make a paradigm shift - We no longer believe that 'children do well if they want to ' , but see things through different lenses -' Children do well if they can ' and when they are not being successful the problem is not one of motivation but lacking skills.  One parent who understands the benefits of CPS may have the same challenge in helping a spouse make the paradigm shift. Staff who are trying to introduce Collaborative Problem Solving at hospitals and other facilities have the same difficulties as parents dealing with schools trying to convince other staff members.



I believe that the fear of relinquishing tools of control and seduction and focusing on one's ability to reach out to a kid and ' work with ' them is getting in their way of staff in these facilities, parents or teachers.

Traditionally, the focus of treatment in treatment facilities is medication and treating the symptoms with behavior modification. It is much easier ' doing to ' a kid than ' working with ' them. It also gives you a feeling that you are doing something – give meds , behavior charts , points and levels - you have 'data '. The pursuit of data gets in the way in helping kids meet their essential needs and treat them with compassion and empathy.


Suffering at the hands of autism – from http://livesinthebalnce.org ' share your story '

My son is injured, I try to imagine his suffering

16 years of "services" and all he has to show are labels

Oppositional, Defiant, Noncompliant

They want to know the function of his behavior:

escape...attention-seeking?

Am I the only one who can see he has no effective or reliable

communication skills?

Data collection gets in the way

of compassion and empathy.

There I said it.

So what does this ' data' tell us . We can conclude that the meds are working or not , or we need more ( of what's not working ) extrinsic motivation. Rewards etc that seem to work , have a problem that they may make a kid look good in the short-term but have no impact on long term measures, generalization and commitment to values. Behavior modification and medication treat behaviors. This is so much easier , much less of a responsibility than to treat the whole child , engage his personality and thinking , drill down with questions so you understand his concerns, and build trust etc.



So how do we get teachers and therapeutic staff to move away from rewards, consequences etc. ?



We need to help parents, teachers and staff to focus on the long term goals we have for kids and not just getting kid's compliance in the short term. We need to help caregivers see their role as helping kids meet essential needs of ' autonomy, competence and relatedness.' - SDT Self Determination Theory




Alfie Kohn says ' In my workshops for parents I like to start off asking, “What are your long-term objectives for your children? What word or phrase comes to mind to describe how you’d like them to turn out, what you want them to be like once they’ve grown?”

Take a moment to think about how you would answer that question. When I invite groups of parents to come up with the most important long-term goals they have for their kids, I hear remarkably similar responses across the country. The list produced by one audience was typical: These parents said they wanted their children to be happy, balanced, independent, fulfilled, productive, self-reliant, responsible, functioning, kind, thoughtful, loving, inquisitive, and confident.

Is what we’re doing consistent with what we really want? Are my everyday practices likely to help my children grow into the kind of people I’d like them to be? Will the things I just said to my child at the supermarket contribute in some small way to her becoming happy and balanced and independent and fulfilled and so on–or is it possible (gulp) that the way I tend to handle such situations makes those outcomes less likely? '

Alfie Kohn is questioning why parents and parenting literature focus on compliance and quick fixes, and is pointing out that docility and short-term obedience are not what most parents desire of their children in the long run.


'Teachers and schools tend to mistake good behavior for good character. What they prize is docility, suggestibility; the child who will do what he is told; or even better, the child who will do what is wanted without even having to be told. They value most in children what children least value in themselves. Small wonder that their effort to build character is such a failure; they don't know it when they see it. '

- John Holt

How Children Fail

Allan

Social Skills Training and ADHD

The 2 major studies of treatments for children with ADHD - the MTA study and Abikoff et al have raised serious doubts whether there is any advantage of adding behavioral therapy and social skills training to a well managed medication treatment plan. Children did benefit from all treatments, but there was no advantage of a combined medication and behavioral treatment plan over medication management alone. Alternative outcome analyses of the MTA study , however show that there is a small but significant advantage of combined medication and behavior treatment plans over medication alone. They also note , that parents whose children who received the combined treatment were more satisfied with the treatment than parents who received medication management alone , despite the fact that there were no differences between the groups on child outcomes . Medication and behavior therapies offered in the community were significantly less effective than treatments offered by the studies. This means that efforts must be made to improve medication treatments and behavior therapies offered in the community and a multi-modal approach including many strategies is the best option.




According to Abikoff , medication only helped to reduce negative behaviors but did not enhance positive pro-social behavior. Gains were only maintained while on medication with no gains after an initial improvement. There was also a decline in pro-social behaviors over time consistent with the general population.



In a review of Social skills training with children and young people , Spence – 2003, says that research suggests that SST alone – instruction, modeling, role play , feedback , reinforcement used in association with interpersonal problem solving and social perception skills - is unlikely to produce generalization of skills and significant and long lasting change in social skills and competence. Rather SST is just an important component of multi-method approaches to treatment of emotional, behavioral and developmental disorders including cognitive restructuring, self and emotional regulation methods and contingency management.



To my surprise , selected literature reviews of Interpersonal Cognitive problem solving approaches showed that ICPS had little or no impact on children's behavior. My understanding is that social skills are really based on interpersonal skills. ICPS and CPS –collaborative problem solving promote the language of problem solving , the ability to ask questions which are the foundations of communication, thinking and emotional regulation skills.



The Webster-Stratton et al study of 4-8 year old using the Dinosaur Child Social Skills and Problem Solving training program was successful in improving children's behavior over a spectrum of disorders including ADHD. Webster says that these findings are significant in the light of recent literature that suggests that cognitive- behavioral treatments do not provide significant changes in behavior. Children in the MTA study were older than the kids in her study - 8 years and older as opposed to 4-8 years old. She suggests that treating kids in the 'preoperational stage of thinking before negative thinking , behavioral interactions and reputations have been stabilized yields better responses to behavioral treatments.



While medication continues to play an important role for chronic key ADHD symptoms such as impulsiveness, hyperactivity and inattention ,medication should not be seen as a long term treatment goal and every attempt should be made to reduce dosages by combining medication with behavioral therapies with the ultimate goal of eliminating medication. Seeing ADHD as purely a medical problem pathologizes the child and therefore often obscures the fact that challenging behavior in kids is a complex, transactional phenomenon also involving the child’s interaction partners and environments and therefore underestimates the importance of care givers being trained , so that they contribute to the development of lacking cognitive skills and respond in an appropriate manner .



Back in the 50s, a prominent psychiatrist named Thomas Szasz characterized psychopathology as “problems in living.” ADHD kids have difficulty in handling frustration and demands placed upon their need for flexibility and adaptability. They display many skill deficits -in the main executive functions = planning , sense of time , separation of affect etc , but also language processing skills, social skills, emotional regulation skills and cognitive flexibility . Medication does not teach skills , but enables the child to benefit from learning and give him those extra seconds to process information and be in a better mood.



As mentioned above medication does not enhance pro-social behavior . Medication does not cure ADHD but merely compensates for developmental delays. The cure for ADHD or at least less reliance on medication is likely to come from changes in the brain , the formation of more and more neuron transmitters in the frontal lobes of the brain , a process acknowledges the neuroplasticity of the brain. Dr Gimpel , the author of the book ' How to cure ADHD ' says that BET , brain exercise therapy and CPS – collaborative problem solving effects changes in the brain because they involve cognitive behavior. According to Gimpel ADHD is a cognitive disability , not a behavioral problem . This is the reason that contingency management and behavior modification don't help or at best as Russel Barkley says just compensates for the kid lack of intrinsic motivation and don't help skills to generalize to other areas.



The question I want to answer is why has SST and interpersonal cognitive problem solving ICPS in the selective literature has proved to be not very effective.



In an article Social Problem-Solving can help children with ADHD (2007) Shure and Aberson conclude that for internalization and generalization of newly acquired skills to other settings caregivers – parents , teachers etc need to be the primary teachers of ICPS , the parenting approach is unconditional using problem solving rather than behavior modification and contingency management in the form of rewards, praise and consequences , and the dialog between themselves and children focuses on perspective taking , consequential thinking etc , the language of problem solving.



Research conducted in the 1970s and 1980s before ADHD was widely diagnosed , showed that many kids who displayed symptoms of ADHD benefitted from the ICPS programs when conducted together with parents rather in clinical settings satisfying the conditions mentioned above.



In the last 10 years the collaborative problem solving approach CPS created Dr Ross Greene has become a very popular treatment strategy for kids lacking cognitive skills and who may also have various diagnoses including ADHD. The philosophy is that children do well if they can . Children would prefer to be successful and act adaptively. Their inappropriate behavior describes a situation where the demands for skills of frustration tolerance , flexibility and adaptability outstrip their coping skills. They do not lack motivation but lack skills . Using behavior modification to ' make them wanna act good ' won't help. They are already motivated to do well and the most satisfying reward is being successful. These kids ( all kids) don't need rewards.



The teaching of skills is individualized for the particular child. It involves collaboratively solving real problems rather than teaching skills in a top-down manner . The initial focus is assuring the kid that he is not in trouble , that adults are not interested in imposing their solution and trying to get his concerns and perspectives on the table. The parent then puts his concerns on the table and defines the problem. Then the parent invites the child to engage in brain storming to come up with mutually satisfying solutions that are doable, durable and realistic , and also agreeing to review the situation. In this way real problems are solved , various cognitive skills are acquired and the relationship and trust between care givers and child enhanced.



According to researchers Deci and Ryan quoted at length in Alfie Kohn's book Punished by rewards kids become intrinsically motivated , internalize and integrate values , become active learners and competent when they are self determined . This is facilitated when their autonomy is supported , and they experience supportive and unconditional caring from peers and care givers whom they trust and helped to become competent .



CPS and ICPS support the child's autonomy – that his actions are expressions of his inner being , promote competence as the child is acquiring crucial life skills , and ' relatedness ' – a trusting relationship with caregivers and peers.





Behavioral and social skills treatment programs are characterized by the top-down learning of skills in a classroom accompanied by a behavior modification program with the use of mainly rewards and sometimes consequences. There is no collaboration with kids and their concerns are often ignored. Kids bring report s home of their behavior in school and a similar report is done for behavior in the home. Parental and teacher responses to the report and to behavior in the home and school usually takes the form of criticism, punishment, reward, praise or lecture. The child then experiences acceptance contingent on his academic performance or behavior. Instead of furthering learning and discussion and reinforcing skills , rewards or verbal praise stop the process , the kid is left with a feeling of being judged and the lessons are lost.

The researchers Deci and Ryan have shown that extrinsic motivation even in the form of rewards and praise undermine intrinsic motivation and interest in activities. Rewards can even set up kids for failure , causing the very behaviors they are targeting because kids feel pressured, anxious and controlled. Kids fail to integrate values because they come to believe that they only do good things because of the reward , known as the over-justification effect.    'In a troubling study conducted by Joan Grusec at the University of Toronto, young children who were frequently praised for displays of generosity tended to be slightly less generous on an everyday basis than other children were. Every time they had heard "Good sharing!" or "I’m so proud of you for helping," they became a little less interested in sharing or helping. Those actions came to be seen not as something valuable in their own right but as something they had to do to get that reaction again from an adult. Generosity became a means to an end. Praise and rewards really foster anti-social behavior because they teach the kid to ask what will I get or what will be done to me , what’s in it for me if I do ….. or don't do etc. According to Carl Rogers children who are conditionally accepted begin to view themselves in a negative light. When kids view themselves as essentially good people , they are empowered to act in a pro-social way. The use of rewards sends these kids a message that you don't trust them to succeed or act altruistic without being bribed to be generous or caring.'  - Alfie Kohn



Another reason why social skills training is unsuccessful is that social skills are taught ,' but not the traits of generosity , caring and altruism. Schools are rather competitive with no cooperative learning , kids ranked one against another, and academic and sports achievement glorified with award ceremonies. Schools themselves are under pressure of high stakes standardized testing and little time is left for promoting socio-moral learning or building a caring community of learners. We can't expect kids to internalize conflict resolution skills and values of community when the ' structure ' of school - the competitive nature and zero tolerance discipline policies go against collaborative solving of problems and cooperative learning needed to create a caring community of learners. In fact , since the introduction of zero tolerance discipline policies behavior problems have increased and kids feel less safer in schools.



The finding that schools become less safe as a result of adopting zero-tolerance policies will sound paradoxical only to those readers who believe that threats and punishment can create safety. In reality, safety is put at risk by such an approach. A safe school environment is one where students are able to really know and trust – and be known and trusted by – adults. Those bonds, however, are ruptured by a system that’s about doing things to students who act inappropriately rather than working with them to solve problems. “The first casualty” of zero-tolerance policies “is the central, critical relationship between teacher and student, a relationship that is now being damaged or broken in favor of tough-sounding, impersonal, uniform procedures. ' –     Safety from the inside out - Alfie Kohn


In conclusion :  There are areas such as chronic impulsiveness and hyperactivity were medication is the most effective treatment but should not be the long term treatment goal. The fact that medication treatment in the community is not optimal is even more reason to improve social skills training. SST needs to be given to kids by caregivers – teachers and parents and modeled in an environment where problems are solved collaboratively rather than using reward, consequences and punishments. I think we need to examine the environment and make it more conducive to pro-social behavior , making school a learning community where kids and teachers care about one another instead of the competitive environment that prevails in schools.

Instead of teaching kids how to behave and giving them skills , we should focus more on understanding kids, seeing the world through their eyes and then helping them acquire skills.

The most valuable reward in teaching ( both academic and socio-moral learning )  is hearing a student say :

  '  Thank you for understanding me '

Happiness and Children's Learning - SDT and CPS

Here are 2 quotes from Joe Bower's blog , a Freak economist Steven Levitt on incentives for school kids and an example of truly constructivist learning from 8 year old's.



I would like to explore them using Self determination Theory principles.



Few parents have the courage and independence to care more for their children's happiness than for their 'success' - Eric Fromm



I would prefer my students to be little “dumber” but a whole lot happier - William Chamberlain


http://www.joebower.org/2010/12/shame-on-you-steven-levitt.html






Eight-year-old children publish bee study in Royal Society journal.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/12/21/eight-year-old-children-publish-bee-study-in-royal-society-journal/

With all the pressure on parents and kids to be successful and accepted in school and on the sports ground , little thought is given whether a child is happy or not. The first thing that parents ask teachers is – how are his test scores , is he behaving himself ? In nearly all meetings they fail to ask - is my child happy in school , does he enjoy learning ?

I make it a habit of mine to ask children in the community what they like about school - the answers I get - recess , friends etc , not learning . Pretty tragic !



The mistake parents make is that success and happiness are dichotomies. In fact I hold - If you are not happy , you will be a whole lot '' dumber''.



According to SDT , people and this includes children are intrinsically happier when they are self determined , can direct their lives and feel that their actions are autonomous. People are happy when they become connected to their inner beings , and this is when true learning takes place . This is the place , a place where kids are happy and want to learn that they can connect to their deeper selves , construct knowledge and make meaning of the world around them and offer insights which are unique to them. When kids are alienated from learning , they are not themselves , not connected to their inner beings.



Steven Levitt takes the other path , the shorter one paved with fool's gold. Paying kids for A's is given them a double reward. Alfie Kohn says the grade , the A is a reward for how well you have done , and the award is rewarding the kid a second time by giving him a reward that is scarce. The kids in the video clip seem very happy . Unfortunately the happiness is not even for the A grades , but for the $$$s and Limo ride.



Now Steven Levitt makes the point that if we want to improve tests scores we should invest in students by giving them incentives rather than in our reforms or teaching. This is freak economics , but not sound economics. Yong Zhao says that Chinese education is producing people with high test scores but low ability. The greatest economic resource a country has is its people. If we invest in people , help them become more self determined, competent, autonomous and interrelated will not only have more successful people , but also people who love learning and love people.



Happiness and success are dependent on one another. Constructivist learning provides an opportunity for the construction and integration of knowledge that becomes part of the child. When kids study for good grades , they forget all they learned as soon as they leave the examination hall. And what reinforces this the grades and award ceremonies.



The 8 year old bee study is evidence of true education which brings with it success and happiness.



There is also social and moral learning. Kids learn when they have opportunities to reflect on pro-social behavior and solve problems using CPS- collaborative problem solving , in a collaborative way finding mutually satisfying solutions. When teachers and parents use consequences to deal with problems , ' doing to ' children certainly does not bring with it happiness. When rewards are used to get children to comply with adult demands , kids are in fact being punished by being given a substitute for real intrinsic rewards and having problem solved taking their concerns into account. CPS promotes real happiness in our children , because it is the way where their problems are being solved and their concerns are being addressed.


Allan

Motivation behind positive or negative behaviors - CPS and SDT

1 I don't think kids are motivated to act in an inappropriate way - negative behavior is more about lacking skills , lack of trust and acceptance and maybe trying to fit in with a negative group.



CPS says that kids do well if they can and not - kids do well if they want to. Kids would prefer

to do well , be successful , behave adaptively and fit in rather than be in trouble and playing cat and mouse with the adults in their lives. So kids are already motivated, the preferred choice is to be successful. Their maladaptive behavior is a sign that they don't have the coping skills to deal with situations. They cannot express their autonomy because they don't have the coping skills. What happens in reality is parents or teachers see this as a motivation problem , so they try to find ways to help the kid to ' wanna ' behave himself.





According to Self Determined Theory SDT , kids express and perceive autonomy when they are connected to their inner core values and their decisions reflect themselves. Autonomy is not independence , it is not about kids expressing independence by resisting adult control. This is the actual paradox that teenagers often fail to get. When they are so busy resisting adult control or involvement , trying to show that adults can't make them do anything or control them , we find that for these kids are choosing their parents agenda , the agenda is actually being set by the parents , their whole lives are dictated by what their parents or teachers do. They don't have the skills to further their interests and support their autonomy in an appropriate way. This leads conflict and bad feelings which prevents kids from benefiting from ' relatedness ' . The emotional baggage undermines relatedness and thereby autonomy.



The controlling and punitive approach in dealing with these kids undermines the possibility of ever creating a trusting relationship between adults and kids. This lack of trust gets in the way of ' autonomy' as kids are focused on surviving the cat and mouse scenario , negative relatedness.



Relatedness in a positive sense , ie positive relationships can trigger non-appropriate behavior. These challenging kids are generally not accepted by their parents as they fail to behave or do OK at school. Because they are conditionally accepted by their parents , they find a ' safe place to land ' amongst negative peers. They are not accepted amongst peers because of their behaviors but feel respected , feel a sense of worth by negative peers or other gang members. What these kids don't get from parents , teachers and peers , they will find elsewhere. Being part of a gang or a negative group may mean that the kid wants to prove himself and therefore engage in inappropriate behavior. These behaviors are not expressions of autonomy but a compensation for the lack of acceptance .



2 Motivation to not engage in negative behavior maybe purely extrinsic to avoid consequences . Intrinsic motivation is only likely when kids can express their autonomy , when they have the skills to act in a competent way and they trust other people.



I think we should look at whether inappropriate behaviors are self – determined or not rather whether kids are motivated or not . Because kids can be motivated to do well , but because their needs of perceived competence and competence itself and relatedness are not being met or actualized , they cannot be self-determined.

Allan

Relax the atmoshere with CPS - LEE vs HEE - expressed emotion

CPS – collaborative problem solving helps parents to be more relaxed and in control of their emotions enabling them to be the source of joy , hope and happiness in their families. Families with challenging kids are very stressed out – see my posts – Welcome to Holland/ Beirut !! .

 Restoring the ' joys of life ' can be pretty difficult but very important. Parents have to be a THERMOSTAT for their kids and help them calm down and be happy , so they need to introduce plenty of song , dance and music into the homes.

Instead of following the advice of most therapists ' it is time that you show leadership and get back into control , be the captain of your ship ' which inevitably leads to WW3 - you are usually comforted that the situation will get worse and then get better , when you kids will see who is really the 'boss' – lower the rope , relax the atmosphere , use Plan C – prioritize challenging behaviors and put many as possible of the issues on the shelf . This helps to minimize conflict and create an atmosphere where parents and kids can bond and connect through general chatting, dialog and conversations. CPS is collaborative in nature , the child and the parent are on the same side , you don't need the ' united front' against your kid. You want to enter his world and reach out to him and help him come up with a better plan. You don't need to be assertive and show your power.



CPS is conducive to Low expressed emotion. Although most parenting approaches talk about speaking in a neutral tone and not screaming or yelling trying to impose your authority and still keep calm are really not a good fit, so most parents end up blaming, criticizing and yelling. ' Back in Control ' parenting is controlling , parents become over-involved trying to control the situation and find solutions without consulting or even taking into account the concerns of kids. This is highly conducive to High emotion expression HEE


Here is some info on "EE" and schizophrenia


Expressed Emotion (EE):



'It was obvious that families may be involved in the progress of the condition, but they are unlikely to have been the cause of it. However, the environment the schizophrenia sufferer returns to after treatment influences the likelihood of successful recovery. Homes where face-to-face interaction is characterized by intense emotional concern or criticism are less conducive to recovery than homes with more emotionally stable interactions. Relapse rates are highest where contact is most fraught.



Brown (1972) showed that patients who returned from hospital to homes where there was a high level of emotionality (High levels of Emotion were Expressed — HEE) were more likely to have a relapse, and would have it sooner than those with LEE (Low levels of Emotion Expressed) families. The kinds of emotions that were expressed were high levels of concern for the sufferers, leading to doing everything for them, being highly critical of their attempts to help themselves, and being very ‘strung out’ generally. These families were characterized by people (mothers usually) rushing around and driving themselves to exhaustion, looking after each other, fussing constantly and being overly possessive. Vaughn and Leff (1976) found 51 per cent of schizophrenic relapses in HEE families, compared to 13 per cent in LEE homes. The more contact the sufferer had with HEE relatives, the higher the relapse rate.

The evidence for the effect of other family members and their emotional responses on recovery from schizophrenia is now well established (and the care package for schizophrenia recovery usually includes some education and support for other family members).



Evidence for the importance of expressed emotion has been found in studies across different cultures so there can be little doubt of its importance in explaining relapse. Unfortunately for the EE explanation, there are also high relapse rates amongst those recovering from schizophrenia who are not in contact with any former family members, so the expressed emotion hypothesis may not be entirely true.' - Psychology notes



'Another example is research done in the area of "expressed emotions [EE]" and psychiatric illness. Years of research clearly show that a psychiatric patient released from the hospital to live with his or her high EE family is twice as likely to relapse and return to the hospital than the patient returning to a low EE family. As noted by a prominent researcher in this area (Hooley, 1998); "The term EE [expressed emotion] is rather misleading since EE is not a measure of how willing a relative is to express emotion or to vent feelings. Rather EE is a reflection of the extent to which the relative expresses critical, hostile, or emotionally over-involved attitudes toward the patient"(p. 631). Note the reluctance of researchers to be honest and open about the fact that they are speaking about a critical family. Instead, they camouflage this information behind the euphemism "expressed emotion."

The above-mentioned researcher, after noting the powerful effect of EE on the relapse rate of psychiatric patients, adds: "These data do not, of course, mean that families cause schizophrenia." I wrote to this researcher and asked if there was any research evidence, as implied by the term "of course," that high EE does not cause schizophrenia? She replied that "the appropriate studies have not been done." She did not explain why she assumes, as an obvious fact, that high EE doesn't cause schizophrenia, in the absence of research evidence. She did state however, that "because of the past tradition of blaming families for causing schizophrenia, it is important that researchers in this area don't go beyond the science in making any unwarranted inferences." It seems however, that when one is being politically correct, then it is quite acceptable to go beyond the science and state, as a proven fact, that EE doesn't cause schizophrenia. In addition, contrary to this researcher's assertion, there is evidence that children in high EE families are more likely to suffer from serious mental illness in adolescence, (see studies cited in Karon & Widener, 1994). ' Dr B Sorotzkin

Allan

Criticism , blame CPS , SDT 2

Criticism or blame focuses on the person. Instead of asking ' What's the matter with you ' and focusing on the kid we can try and help him focus on the effects of his actions on others. 'I am disappointed when you do THAT – helps a kid reflect on how his action might have hurt others' feelings. 

 Instead of blame we can just ask questions or lead the discussion by just simply saying what we saw or ' I have noticed that your homework is not getting done, what's up ?

SDT Self determination theory research shows that kids will internalize messages when they are given in a way that kids can reflect and come to their own conclusions. The stronger or more ' honest ' the criticism, the less internalization takes place. Also when the criticism focuses on the person, the kid responds with denials , rebuttals , blaming and often swearing and cursing. The focus has shifted away from what the kid did and is now all about the parent who can be blamed for getting in the way , interfering , controlling or not supporting. If the kid has other siblings , the discussion begins to revolve what about his brother and sister . When dealing with issues is solution focused , we don't have kids diverting the discussion to how their other siblings are behaving.

Telling kids the honest truth in a loving way unfortunately pushes them further from the truth and alienates them from you. In any case we want them to focus on their actions and how they affect others.



We can deal with issues by ' doing to ' kids - coercision , threats , consequences, punishments , blame and criticism or trying to manipulate them with rewards or incentives or leverage their behavior with consequences. Here we have a solution in mind . We want the kid to do it our way.

When we collaborate with the kid and problem solve , we go into the process without a  preconceived solution.  We don't try to manipulate the kid to comply with our solution by doing  Plan A ( parent solution ) in the guise of Plan B ( collaborative problem solving ). We tell the kid – we are not going to force you to do anything . This actually allows the child to step forward – like a dance , when you step back , your partner steps forward. The process starts out focusing on the kid's concerns , so he feels understood and will more likely now be open to hear our concerns. As one parent said after solving a problem with CPS – this is the first time – I felt heard.



When we engage in CPS when certainly do not want the kid to feel bad or just to stamp out a particular behavior out of existence but we want our kids to become ' authors' and 'origins' in their lives , being part of the solution which will solve problems in a way which are mutually satisfactory and durable. We also want to avoid injuring the relationship. And most we want to influence kids the way they think and feel, that they don't hurt others, not because they are afraid of the punishments, but they with our help become the kind of people who wouldn't want to act cruelly.

And of course , being part of the solution by participating in collaborative problem solving is imho the highest expression of responsibility and accountability.

Allan

(Constructive) criticism , blame , cps and sdt

In my humble opinion, there is no such thing as constructive criticism. Criticism is poison to relationships like sugar is to teeth. It does not help to say to kids ' I love you, but not your actions.' Kids don't make that distinction. Criticism is about blame, and can easily be perceived as a form of punishment and rejection. Using praise and expressions of approval can be also a form of punishment when it is given contingent on what kids do.





Alfie Kohn in his book ' Unconditional Parenting explains –



Nearly half a century ago, the pioneering psychologist Carl Rogers offered an answer to the question "What happens when a parent's love depends on what children do?" He explained that those on the receiving end of such love come to disown the parts of themselves that aren't valued. Eventually they regard themselves as worthy only when they act (or think or feel) in specific ways. This is basically a recipe for neurosis - or worse. A publication by the Irish Department of Health and Children (which has been circulated and adopted by other organizations all over the world) offers ten examples to illustrate the concept of "emotional abuse." Number two on the list, right after "persistent criticism, sarcasm, hostility or blaming," is "conditional parenting, in which the level of care shown to a child is made contingent on his or her behaviors or actions.''



Kids who are blamed and criticized by parents will in return learn to blame others and especially their parents for their failures, difficulties and misfortunes. Parents complain that kids never want to admit that they did something wrong. For parents this is the meaning of taking responsibility, taking the blame and being accountable. If we take out ' blame ', we are promoting a ' No fault ' society and we don't want that.





Parents put a lot of energy in trying to get kids 'admit what they did'. Kids generally will resist this as it feels like a punishment, humiliation and certainly does not make them feel good. Is it necessary for kids to first feel bad in order for them to improve themselves? Is taking the blame a precondition for taking responsibility and solving problems? Maybe getting rid of the word ' blame ' will enable kids to go beyond ' I am to blame ' and actually solve the problem and engage in the moral act of restitution.



In order to avoiding criticizing kids and get rid of the word ' blame', we need to have a different perspective about misbehavior, infractions and unmet expectations. If we have a fixed mindset and have house rules, it is highly likely that when these rules are broken , we will be obliged to issue a consequence , punishment or some verbal reprimand or criticism. If we have a ' growth mindset' , that 'mistakes' are our friends and opportunities for learning , we will engage in CPS collaborative problem solving to solve problems and unmet expectations. When we offer compassion and understanding when kids fail, we teach them that we all can make mistakes, that we all make mistakes, and in many instances we learn only through making mistakes. Just as we can make mistakes , we can fix them. As Dr Greene says ' Children do well if they can ' and not ' children do well if they want to ' , so forget about reprimanding them and instead help them come up with a better plan.



June Tangney explains that people who blame themselves end up blaming others. We often hear how some people end an argument or discussion by saying ' I am to blame '. They are in fact offering a solution to a problem – blame me, let me take the responsibility for what happened. Because this does not solve the problem, they eventually look for someone else to blame.



Now we as people do experience some emotion when we have done something wrong or have not acted according to our values. We will respond in different ways, depending on the emotion. June Tangney suggests that ' shame' leads to a person feeling bad about the ' self' making themselves into objects.

The person says ' How could '' I '' do that?

When a person experiences guilt he says ' How could I do THAT ?

The focus is no longer on the self but on the action. Feelings of shame leads to blaming oneself. Feelings of guilt leads to problem solving.



Instead of (constructive ) criticism why not do some CPS – collaborative problem solving. An important part of solving problems is ' externalizing the problem ' – separating the problem from the self as an object and focusing on the self as a process.

We internalize our values and externalize problems.



Blaming others is a bad position to work from. One will always be stuck with a belief that ' your mother is to blame ' for your difficulties.



"Placing the blame or judgment on someone else

leaves you powerless to change your experience.

Taking responsibility for your beliefs and judgments

gives you the power to change them." Byron Katie





Blaming yourself does not help either. It focuses on the past and you the object who needs to be done to – reprimanded , criticized . Blame and self- criticism prevent one from dealing with the future.



Accountability and taking responsibility for some parents means ' Getting a child to admit they did wrong' and usually means they need to suffer more pain. This focuses on the self as an object.



When kids are not subjected to a controlling and a judgmental environment they feel more autonomous. Autonomy and being unconditionally accepted by teachers and parents is crucial for kids' moral development, being able to externalize problems, internalize values ,take responsibility and solve problems.



Alfie Kohn – Unconditional Teaching article

In an illuminating passage from her recent book Learning to Trust (2003), Marilyn Watson explained that a teacher can make it clear to students that certain actions are unacceptable while still providing “a very deep kind of reassurance – the reassurance that she still care[s] about them and [is] not going to punish or desert them, even [if they do] something very bad.” This posture allows “their best motives to surface,” thus giving “space and support for them to reflect and to autonomously engage in the moral act of restitution” – that is, to figure out how to make things right after doing something wrong. “If we want our students to trust that we care for them,” she concludes, “then we need to display our affection without demanding that they behave or perform in certain ways in return. It’s not that we don’t want and expect certain behaviors; we do. But our concern or affection does not depend on it.”





When we involve our kids in CPS, collaborative problem solving they are being far more accountable and responsible by being part of a solution that will solve the problem for ever. Blaming others or even yourself is just a form of punishment , destroys relationships and self esteem and leaves you with a problem not solved.



So instead of (constructive) criticism engage in CPS , instead of trying yo get your kids to admit what they did , just explain that there is a problem and that you would appreciate their input. They are more likely to respond positively to this request than admit that they are to blame.



Allan

Problem solving - Plan B- drilling down to ' quality' concerns/ concerns vs solutions

The first step in the collaborative problem solving process is the Empathy step.


We try to gather information about the child's concerns and perspectives and if necessary reassuring him that we are not interested in imposing our solution, we just want his input and hear his side of the story.



Kids may know what they want and wanted to do or what they did. These are not concerns, but rather solutions to concerns. Kids and adults often present their concerns in terms of solutions. We need to help them take a step back and reveal the underlying concern which then will open up many more possible solutions.

If a kid would want to play on the computer and you would prefer her to do her homework, we essentially have two solutions on the table. If we put these solutions on the table , we end up with negotiation or the dueling of solutions. If we go back a step and look at concerns, we may find that the kid has a problem with homework etc and being on the computer is her solution. Imho the brilliance of CPS is be able to distinguish between a solution and a concern and this opens up possibilities of many new solutions and not just a compromise.





Now kids are not very good at articulating their concerns or even figuring out what they are. In the past their concerns have been ignored and they have never been asked to articulate them. When you ask them why they did something, they may find it difficult to tell you. If you ask them what's bothering them, they most probably say ' I don't know , or offer reasons such as ' it's not fun or boring ' which maybe true but is not the real concern. There maybe more than one concern.



For this reason some approaches encourage parents or teachers to come up with solutions which ignore the child's concerns. Not only does this lead to low quality solutions, but the opportunity for learning and skills acquired during the CPS process are lost.



Besides the possibility of lacking language skills, or a kid simply says he does not know what to say, a kid may show difficulty in expressing his concerns because the unsolved problem we are trying to work on may be too vague so kids are not exactly sure what we are trying to gather information about.



We can help the kid by making tentative suggestions or asking questions. Generally open ended questions, not the ones which lead to a yes/no answer are preferred because they promote conversation and dialog. So statements like ' can you tell me more ' or how do you feel about ' etc should provide more information. For some kids this is difficult so it is better to start out with short yes/no questions and take it from there. We need to try and keep the conversation going and drill down until we get a clear idea of what the child's concerns are. We should try to end our statements with a question. Questions like – why, when, over what, with whom, what happened before or after , where help us get more input from the child.






Drilling Down



5/8/2008



The more we help folks troubleshoot their attempts at using our approach the more we find that success often rests on how much “drilling down” they have been able to do with the respective concerns to be addressed. As we like to say, “low quality concerns lead to low quality solutions!” When we refer to the “quality” of concerns, what we mean is how specific they are. The more specific the better.



As a clinician helping to facilitate Plan B your role will often involve asking the probing questions and doing the detective work necessary to get to the bottom of what someone’s concerns are – all the while resisting the temptation to jump into solution mode until the problem is well defined. So how do you know when you’ve gotten specific enough? We have a pretty simple litmus test actually: imagine using that concern as a jumping off point for brainstorming potential solutions. If you are finding it hard to envision any potential solutions and it seems like you will staring at a dead end, chances are the concerns need to be clarified. Here’s an example:



Child’s concern: I don’t see why I can’t go out on week nights with my friends.



Parents’ concern: We don’t think it’s appropriate for him to be going out on school nights and socializing.



Now let’s use our litmus test and see how those concerns might look when it comes to the invitation to brainstorm solutions together:



I wonder if there’s a way for you to go out on week nights without it being inappropriate in your parents' eyes …?



Ouch. That sounds like a dead-end! Plan B will be stuck in the mud for sure. Now let’s say we had done the hard (but well worth it) work of drilling down to get very specific about people’s concerns. How does one do that? By asking lots of questions – like how and why? We often find ourselves repeating the mantra: “I’m just trying to make sure I understand.” In this example, one might ask: Why do you want to go out on weekdays? What do you want to do? With whom? Etc. All the while providing reassurance that you are just getting information and not saying no (or yes for that matter!). Similarly, you would ask the parents: Why do you think it’s inappropriate? Again providing reassurance that you don’t disagree (or agree for that matter!), but that you are just trying to understand.



Child’s concern: Sometimes there’s something fun going on during the week that I don’t want to miss out on – like a baseball game or something that all my friends get to go to.



Parents’ concern: We’re concerned about your homework and studying getting done, and we also would like to be able to spend some time with you since we barely see you on weekends anymore.



Now let’s re-try our litmus test to see how the invitation might look with these more specific concerns on the table:



I wonder if there’s a way for you to not miss out on things your friends are doing during the week but still make sure your work gets done and that your parents also have some time with you at home.



This is now sounding much more promising, right? So we would encourage you to imagine what the invitation might look like when you are in the process of defining the problem. If you see a dead-end ahead still, keeping clarifying those concerns! Once you think you have gotten specific enough, then (and only then!) is it time to ask for ideas. Good luck!



Here is an example of drilling down in a school environment


http://www.livesinthebalance.org/drilling-information



Here is the collaborative problem solving Plan B cheat sheet – helpful with the drilling down process.


http://www.livesinthebalance.org/sites/default/files/PlanBCheatSheet%207-10.pdf






I want to end off by repeating what I consider one of my most important messages to parents or teachers. Our greatest tool is simply talking with our kids or rather we listening and they speaking , we directing the conversation with dialog questions helping them to take perspectives , articulate concerns and brainstorm solutions which are realistic and mutually satisfactory. We can talk about general stuff , other peoples experiences and problems which are less emotive and easier to externalize and visualize.



Allan

Kids perceptions / Choice - selection or construction SDT and CPS

Parenting imho should be concerned with the kid's perceptions. I often remind myself and others that we are dealing with their perceptions and not their behaviors. We need to try and see their world through their eyes. Kids can make meaning of what we do to them and how we respond. ' It is not what we teach them , that matters but what they learn ' - Alfie Kohn. Often when we think that they need to be taught a certain lesson that their behaviors are unacceptable, they learn another lesson , - their mistake is being caught and their perception that parents or adults are unfair is reinforced.




But kid's perceptions can be exploited to support more controlling types of parenting especially in certain cultural settings. See the appendix Unconditional parenting by Alfie Kohn



If we place importance on children's perceptions without relating to what kids objectively need for their development , kids will not be receive the kind of parenting and teaching they deserve, an education which will promote academic, socio-moral and emotional development .



Some  kids may be less adversely affected by physical punishment because they perceive it as parental concern and love. But the question is even if a child could reconcile acts of aggression ( even without anger ) as a act of love and attention is it a good thing for kids to learn that love can be expressed through violence?



How do kids come to perceive violence as an act of love. When physical punishment is the only alternative to indifference kids learn to take what they can get. The same can be said about praise. If conditional acceptance is the only possibility, kids will drink it in and even say that they wish they'd gotten more. And when researchers ask these kids about how their parents treated them or if their parents loved them or they felt loved unconditionally they will give positive answers. They would see parental control and punishment as supporting the need of relatedness.



According to SDT , Self Determined Theory rewards would have a positive effect on perceived competence and hence intrinsic motivation if we could neutralize the controlling nature of rewards. If kids perceived competence means that kids see themselves , the self as an object as ' smart ' or A students they are likely to avoid challenges , seek out easy tasks and be less engaged in learning indicating a adverse effect on intrinsic motivation.



What about kids' perceptions of autonomy. Now most parents and kids don't know what the word means , maybe something to do with independence. ' To be self determined is to endorse one's actions at the highest level of reflection. When self determined people experience a sense to do what is interesting , personally important and vitalizing.' - Deci and Ryan. It is about being connected to your inner core , being reflective and experiencing a sense of freedom.





Now many parenting books recommend giving kids choices as a strategy to get kids to do want you want. So good advice would be to first connect with your kid and then ask him whether he wants to eat now fish , meat or salads. We want the kid to come to the table and eat his supper , he will want to exercise choice so he will choose ' meat' and come to the table. This seems to be the middle of the road type of parenting or authoritative parenting. The permissive parent will ask if the kid wants to eat supper , the authoritarian parent will order the kid to come to table to eat supper and to eat what is put on his plate.



There is a different way – CPS collaborative problem solving. Kids are encourage to participate in planning and problem solving by ' generating choices ' . In this way they express their autonomy and relatedness by addressing both concerns – theirs and parents when they attempt to find mutual satisfactory solutions.



When parents offer choices and it does not matter if the choice is between 2 or 20 options , it is still Plan A , it is still the adult plan , do it my way and my way is A, B, or C , choose one of them. Allowing a kid to do what ever he chooses Plan C does not necessarily mean that the kid's choice is made at the highest level of reflection. Plan B is where reflection and expression of autonomy and relatedness takes place.



With Plan A the kid is choosing from choices the parent or teacher has generated. With Plan B kids are the origins of their choices , they are the ones who generate choices.



Alfie Kohn makes this point in his article ' how to create non-readers'

http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/nonreaders.htm



Supporting their autonomy isn’t just about having them pick this over that. “The experience of self-determination is not something that can be given to the student through the presentation of an array of teacher-determined options (e.g., ‘Here are six books; which do you want to read today?’)”[9]. I think there are two insights here.

The first is that deeper learning and enthusiasm require us to let students generate possibilities rather than just choosing items from our menu; construction is more important than selection.

The second is that what we really need to offer is “autonomy support,” an idea that’s psychological, not just pedagogical. It’s derived from a branch of psychology called self-determination theory, founded by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, among others. To support students’ autonomy is to meet their need to be in control of their own lives, to offer opportunities to decide along with the necessary guidance and encouragement, to “minimiz[e] the salience of evaluative pressure and any sense of coercion in the classroom” and “maximiz[e] students’ perceptions of having a voice and choice.”[10]



A kid may have a perceived sense of autonomy when he is able to ' select ' a choice from options given by his parent or teacher , especially when he has been accustomed to have been given absolutely no choice in the past. I doubt whether the selection/choice is accompanied by an endorsement of one's actions at the highest level of reflection.

Kids will not be receive the kind of parenting and teaching they deserve , an education which will promote academic, socio-moral and emotional development if we rely only on their perceptions of autonomy , competence and relatedness.


Allan

Rewards - CPS , SDT - Part 2

In my blog on using rewards together with CPS – collaborative problem solving I suggested that we should try use rewards not as incentives but to give the activity an association of fun.






In the article below Deci and Ryan prove without a doubt from a meta-analysis that extrinsic motivators like rewards undermine intrinsic motivation.


http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/documents/2001_DeciKoestnerRyan.pdf    ( 1-5/15 )



The negative effect of the rewards was minimized when rewards were not given in a 'controlling manner ' but rather as ' informational feedback 'and the rewards were task-non-contingent. The controlling aspect not only has a negative effect on perceived self determination but also on relatedness - relationships.







'Deci and Ryan specified three types of reward contingencies: task-noncontingent rewards, which do not require engaging in the activity per se but are instead given for some other reasons

such as simply participating in the experiment; task-contingent rewards, which require doing or completing the target activity; and performance - contingent rewards, which require performing the activity well, matching a standard of excellence, or surpassing

a specified criterion (e.g., doing better than half of the oilier participants).'



'To. summarize, results of the meta-analysis make clear that the undermining of intrinsic motivation by tangible rewards is indeed a significant issue. Whereas verbal rewards tended to enhance intrinsic motivation (although not for children and not when the rewards were given controllingly) and neither unexpected tangible rewards nor task-non contingent tangible rewards affected intrinsic motivation,

expected tangible rewards did significantly and substantially undermine intrinsic motivation, and this effect was quite robust. Furthermore, the undermining was especially strong for children. '



I will relate to verbal rewards in a future blog. In a sentence , if verbal rewards take the form of neutral informational feedback or helping a person self evaluate , assess and reflect , intrinsic motivation is likely to be enhanced.



Rewards are attractive as they are powerful motivators in the short – run. They get you obedience and compliance. If tasks are manual and don't require thinking, rewards get the job done quicker. For parents ( not of challenging children ) a reward or a threat can get the job done. The problem is the long term costs especially in the areas of intrinsic motivation, relatedness and competence.







The article says that rewards have a positive effect on perceived competence and would promote intrinsic motivation . The effect is lost because of the controlling nature of rewards and the negative effect on perceived self determination.



From other articles on the SDT site , Alfie Kohn etc I would suggest that the positive effect on perceived competence would not contribute to intrinsic motivation because the rewards enhance perceived competence not as a PROCESS , but the SELF as an object . Rewards enhance a 'fixed mindset ' rather than a ' growth mindset '. People who have a fixed mindset , that they are smart or competent will avoid challenging or difficult tasks and focus on sustaining their 'image' , rather than being involved in learning or other forms of creativity. They are less likely to engage in the activity in the future.



I received 2 interesting comments ( one PM )



I talked about a kid using extrinsic motivation when it is self determined to help him cope with time- on- task, practicing piano. A mom wrote that the hour of practice seemed an eternity to my child.



' I decided that if my son could put that hour into perspective, he might not feel overwhelmed by "an hour". I created a large pie chart -- larger the better so that you can "emphasize" the small slice -- and divided it into one hour slices. We colored in the sleeping hours, school hours, homework time, practice time, and free time. When he saw how much free time he would have if he efficiently tackled the "must dos", the homework and practice didn't seem so overwhelming. The slices were a small part of his day. '



The mom dealt with the issue by really understanding the concerns of her child and problem solving. The collaborative problem solving approach holds that most kids are already intrinsically motivated to do well, kids would prefer to do well, so if they are having trouble the problem is not motivational. The problem is more likely to be one of lagging skills, competence, the child's concerns are not being addressed and he is feeling controlled and coerced.



I think SDT says the same thing. Kids , people are intrinsically motivated to do well , and when they are struggling , the things that are getting in the way are usually competence , lack of relatedness, and lack of autonomy. People are not lacking the motivation. The traditional way of understanding all problems is to attribute it to the fact that the kid is lacking motivation , if he wants to do well , he would do well . CPS holds , and I think it is true of SDT , people do well if they can , not if they want to.



Nicolas Connault wrote ' I'm not sure that trying to achieve intrinsic motivation for ALL desirable behaviors is a realistic goal. Children find it easier to be intrinsically motivated, but I don't think it's possible to be intrinsically motivated to do everything we do as adults. '



I agree that many activities are not intrinsically motivating but at least we should aspire to be competent , the activity is self determined and autonomous , we should experience ' relatedness ' to those we interact with , and the natural outcomes are important and desirable.



Alfie Kohn –in ' Punished by Rewards ' makes 6 recommendations on how to minimize the damage of rewards.



1 Get rewards out of people's faces

- reduce the salience of rewards, make them less conspicuous, give them out privately, and avoid making a big fuss.



2 Offer rewards after the fact , as a surprise.

This helps blur the connection between previous behavior and the reward . The downside is people begin to expect rewards in the future and this will impact on intrinsic motivation.



3 Never turn the quest for rewards into a contest by limiting them artificially.

Competition and rivalry have negative effects relatedness, competence and autonomy .



4 Make rewards as similar as possible to the task.

– so endogenous rewards , for eg giving kids books, trips etc that deal with the task and thereby reduce the gap between what kids are doing and what they are getting for it.



5 Give people as much choice as possible about how rewards are used

- They can participate in the evaluation process of what has been done and how and to whom rewards should be given. Care should be taken that rewards remain something ' by the way ' , not salient and given without a fuss.



6 Try to immunize individuals against the motivation-killing effects of rewards

- By focusing and emphasizing the intrinsic value of what is being done.



I would add -



Show people how to use self- determined rewards to help them achieve their goals or keep on task.



Show people that many tasks may not be intrinsically rewarding but are more valued when done in an autonomous way and the natural outcomes are desirable.



Focus less on motivation , but more on autonomy, competence and relatedness.



Allan